Atheists, quit confusing the two.

[TFian]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

 

[Craig4]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

No. Theology regularly trespasses into science. All creation stories in all religions trespass into science. Anything impacting the real world is testable and properly the realm of science.

Moreover a god thing is not necessary to for morality, ethics, and anything else. So, if we don't need to make up a god to tell us how we go here and we don't need a god to tell us what to and not to do what is there left for a god to do? Why be bothered with them?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Theology does fall into the realm of scientific inquiry. For one thing, theists frequently make claims regarding nature. For another, religion is certainly a subject that can be studied by psychologists and sociologists.

 

[devnull]

Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical

This isnt actually true. Science can reveal a great deal about morality and ethics.

Also, as others have noted, theism encroaches on science.

So..... no.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This isnt actually true. Science can reveal a great deal about morality and ethics.

Yes, science can be used to help us understand why we have the morals and ethics that we do.

 

[Tacita]

I don't need science to tell me what is moral or ethical.

Nothing is outside the realm of science. If it seems to be, it's just because we haven't figured it out yet.

 

[Kahalachan]

So there is absolutely no reason to want to teach creationism in a science class. Or to claim that prayer healed someone. Or to say that your deity wants us to live and act a certain way.

Awesome. Theology can be outside the realm of science all it wants and stay there.

 

[devnull]

Yes, science can be used to help us understand why we have the morals and ethics that we do.

Indeed. In the end, nothing can actually tell us what is moral or ethical. Its a relative term, arrived at by consensus.

 

[JJM 777]

Atheists, quit confusing the two.
(...)
Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical

I feel that you confuse two things here, theology (doctrines about supernatural life and the afterlife) and ethics. These are two separate things, the former can remain beyond the realm of science if it wants to, the latter is de-facto a matter of politics, and whichever philosophy the governing politicians base their decisions upon. Or a matter of whoever defines a code and whoever follows it, more or less devoutly. Usually less.

Even if pure theology is beyond the reach of science, and should belong to the realm of free will and conscience unrestrained by any state or politics, religions typically include a bundled package of some theology, some moral codes, some other customs, possibly some racism, and possibly some politics too, which as a whole are far from neutral and uncriticizable by democratic politics, science, psychology, or law enforcement.

 

[Lowpro]

If we consider Theology to have the confidence to make assertions about the world we live in, then we to can give book authors literary license to assume their characters exist in reality because they exist in their minds.

By jove I just explained edge's mind...I feel sick.

 

[Pardalis]

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

One of which is a complete free-for-all.

I'll let you guess which one.

 

[Ausmerican]

Noma = bs.

 

[Pardalis]

I wonder why the OP is so upset.

I guess theists have realized that their little spring break has come to an end, and they have to get back to class. They thought they could get away with claiming anything about everything, but now they have to answer for their nonsense.

Science has crashed their party, in other words.

 

[ynot]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

True.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

False . . . and you started so well . . . what a shame.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I promise you science won't test any claims you make that aren't scientifically testable. If your theology stays on that side of the line, you're safe. Cross it, and the gloves come off.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science.
...
They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Science is a realm of knowledge, but not the only such realm. But theology is to my knowledge just a realm of speculation. Once theology encroaches on knowledge, do let me know.

Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Correct. And neither does theology.

 

[Trakar]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

To my considerations, the bigger problem is a conflation of people's beliefs about gods or the supernatural in general, with the actuality or potential of gods and the supernatural in general. I think this extends to many in both of the primary opposing perspectives on these issues

Evidences may support or fail to support any particular set of beliefs, but this only speaks to that particular iteration of belief and generally doesn't address the actual underlying issue at all, merely the individual/group's beliefs about that issue. IOW, establishing a tsunami of compelling evidenciary support that soundly refutes the idea that some supernatural agency created the universe 6000 years ago, doesn't neutralize the potential of a supernatural creator, it merely countermands the particular specific iteration of belief that the creation occurred 6000 years ago.

The problem, for me, arises when anyone, regardless of perspective, asserts a positive without compelling evidenciary support, whether that position is based in theism, atheism, or antitheism.

 

[PixyMisa]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Neither does theology. The reason science can't answer these questions is because they're not properly defined. And that means no other system can answer them meaningfully either.

 

[Tatyana]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

I guess you haven't read much evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.

 

[lionking]

Noma = bs.

I was going to make the same point, but not so succinctly.